I guess the good news this time around is that Tennessee isn't getting away with cheating.
Maybe everything that Lane Kiffin does at UT should have an asterisk next to it.
No, we only feel extreme moral outrage at cheating when it involves baseball players.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Bud's outrage and outrage over some bud
Bud Selig is so incensed by A-Rod's confession that he's considering a measure so abominable that the Framers banned it from government (see: Article I, Section 9). Obviously, the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws isn't binding against the MLB Commissioner, but given the extreme violation of A-Rod's privacy (not to mention the 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement) to this point in this scandal, I think Bud owes it to A-Rod to just let this die.
Meanwhile, the Richland County Sherrif's department is considering bringing charges against Michael Phelps for being photographed allegedly doing something less dangerous than drinking alcohol. This is the same city whose cops brought you the excessive beating of Kevin Young in August of last year.
It's a dark day in sports for the rights of the individual.
Meanwhile, the Richland County Sherrif's department is considering bringing charges against Michael Phelps for being photographed allegedly doing something less dangerous than drinking alcohol. This is the same city whose cops brought you the excessive beating of Kevin Young in August of last year.
It's a dark day in sports for the rights of the individual.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Hold Me, Thrill Me, Foul Me, Bench Me
Let me just open this by saying that of all the major sports to which I have devoted strategic thought, my opinions on baseball strategy are probably the most well-formed, with football a distant second and basketball an even more distant third.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I've always thought the behavior of basketball coaches in one particular area of the game somewhat odd: benching players after accumulating a certain number of fouls.
***Disclaimer 2: I have no data supporting the assertions made in this paragraph*** If a player accumulates 2 fouls within the first couple minutes of the game, he is often benched. If at any point during the first half he accumulates 3 fouls, foolish is thought the coach that fails to bench this player for the greater part of the half's remainder. And, like Devan Downey at the mid-point of the second half against Florida, a player that acquires a fourth foul in a close game is sure to see the bench until the game is getting close to its end.
To make sense, this modus operandi would have to assume at least one of the following:
1) Benching the player will ultimately increase the amount of his playing time
2) Having the player available late in the game is more important than having him available at any other time
3) Players are less effective when they have a large number of fouls relative to the time elapsed in the game
I don't really see how you could make an argument that #1 is true, so I will omit analyzing it in detail. It seems to me that the act of benching such a player merely shifts his contribution to the team along a timeline and may inadvertently cut short the potential impact that he may have on the game.
Imagine a world in which athletes do not get fatigued. Player X can play 38 minutes before committing 5 fouls. But when Player X commits his fourth foul, the coach takes him out of the game for five minutes before subbing him back in for the last four minutes of the game. In this scenario, Player X is only on the floor for 35 minutes instead of 38 minutes. After all, neither the coach nor the player can know when he will commit his fifth and final foul.
For the decision to pay off in this scenario, the player's contribution in the final two minutes would need to be at least 1.75 times as valuable as his contribution from the 9 minute mark to the four minute mark*. I'm having difficulty coming up with a possible reason that the final two minutes would be that much more valuable. After all, aren't points scored or prevented in the first minute of the game just as valuable as points scored or prevented in the final minute of the game?
The only real problem that I see with my theory is that players might not perform at their peak level when they are saddled with a large number of fouls for a fear of the consequences of committing subsequent fouls. But I feel that, to some extent, this fear may be exacerbated by the prevailing coaching heuristic in which players with a certain number of fouls at a certain point in the game get sent to the bench.
To summarize: if players are much less effective when they have a large number of fouls and/or it is much more valuable to have a player available at the end of the game than at any other time, then benching players with fouls is a good idea. But those gains would have to be so large (if they exist) that they would outweigh the cost of potentially shortening the amount of time the player is on the floor.
Thoughts? Criticisms?
*Am I thinking about this right? With 9 minutes to go in the game, you could bench the player for 5 minutes (9-5=4) or let the player foul out (9-2=7), giving 7/4=1.75
With that disclaimer out of the way, I've always thought the behavior of basketball coaches in one particular area of the game somewhat odd: benching players after accumulating a certain number of fouls.
***Disclaimer 2: I have no data supporting the assertions made in this paragraph*** If a player accumulates 2 fouls within the first couple minutes of the game, he is often benched. If at any point during the first half he accumulates 3 fouls, foolish is thought the coach that fails to bench this player for the greater part of the half's remainder. And, like Devan Downey at the mid-point of the second half against Florida, a player that acquires a fourth foul in a close game is sure to see the bench until the game is getting close to its end.
To make sense, this modus operandi would have to assume at least one of the following:
1) Benching the player will ultimately increase the amount of his playing time
2) Having the player available late in the game is more important than having him available at any other time
3) Players are less effective when they have a large number of fouls relative to the time elapsed in the game
I don't really see how you could make an argument that #1 is true, so I will omit analyzing it in detail. It seems to me that the act of benching such a player merely shifts his contribution to the team along a timeline and may inadvertently cut short the potential impact that he may have on the game.
Imagine a world in which athletes do not get fatigued. Player X can play 38 minutes before committing 5 fouls. But when Player X commits his fourth foul, the coach takes him out of the game for five minutes before subbing him back in for the last four minutes of the game. In this scenario, Player X is only on the floor for 35 minutes instead of 38 minutes. After all, neither the coach nor the player can know when he will commit his fifth and final foul.
For the decision to pay off in this scenario, the player's contribution in the final two minutes would need to be at least 1.75 times as valuable as his contribution from the 9 minute mark to the four minute mark*. I'm having difficulty coming up with a possible reason that the final two minutes would be that much more valuable. After all, aren't points scored or prevented in the first minute of the game just as valuable as points scored or prevented in the final minute of the game?
The only real problem that I see with my theory is that players might not perform at their peak level when they are saddled with a large number of fouls for a fear of the consequences of committing subsequent fouls. But I feel that, to some extent, this fear may be exacerbated by the prevailing coaching heuristic in which players with a certain number of fouls at a certain point in the game get sent to the bench.
To summarize: if players are much less effective when they have a large number of fouls and/or it is much more valuable to have a player available at the end of the game than at any other time, then benching players with fouls is a good idea. But those gains would have to be so large (if they exist) that they would outweigh the cost of potentially shortening the amount of time the player is on the floor.
Thoughts? Criticisms?
*Am I thinking about this right? With 9 minutes to go in the game, you could bench the player for 5 minutes (9-5=4) or let the player foul out (9-2=7), giving 7/4=1.75
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Nick's Six: Reasons To Watch Super Bowl XLIII
There have been a lot of nay-sayers (does anyone actually say 'nay'?) surrounding this year's Super Bowl between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Arizona Cardinals. I'll admit, it's not the dreamiest match up, but this year's game has some compelling aspects. And no, I'm not talking about Ken Wisenhunt's revenge, the emergence of Larry "Unlike Anquan Boldin, I will not throw a" Fitzgerald, or a battle between long-time franchises. Here are six REAL reasons to watch this game.
1. Cardinals fans: Until about a week ago, I had no idea that people actually rooted for the Arizona/Phoenix/St. Louis/Chicago/Racine Cardinals. I will be interested to see how these people will react to things like: a big game, potential rain, and people from Pennsylvania without a trace of a tan.
2. NBC has the game: This means no Joe Buck. This means no Tony Siragusa. This means no Howie, Terry and Jimmy. This means no robot football player during timeouts. This means telestration by John Madden. This means actual comprehensive coverage from the studio with Costas, Collinsworth, and Dan Patrick. Unfortunately, this also means Keith Olbermann.
3. Sans Manning: I already consider this Superbowl a success, as it is physically impossible for the member of the Manning family to win it.
Disclaimer: I should note that the previous picture was not of the Manning family I was speaking about. But it: A. was what I found when I googled 'Manning brothers'; B. is hilarious; C. sums up how I feel about the actual Manning brothers.
4. Tampa: No, this is not in reference to Tampa's beautiful beaches, gorgeous views, or place in UConn basketball history. This is in reference to Tampa's apparent bevy of strip clubs. Using a Pacman Jones joke would be too easy here. My favorite excerpt:
"local lawmakers passed an anti-lap-dance ordinance before the last Super Bowl here in 2001, making it a misdemeanor offense for dancers to come within six feet of patrons."
Hi my name is Ben Roethlisberger, how much for an air dance?
5. Bruce Springsteen: The Bossman is providing the halftime entertainment. For Kurt Warner, I suggest "Countin' On A Miracle," and, "I'm Goin' Down."
6. Senor Bean: Check out the television listings for Sunday night. Unless you're in to reruns of The Drew Carey Show (Cleveland SUCKS by the way), or Teen Cribs...you'll probably want to stick with the game. Although Mr. Bean on Telemundo will probably be on my recall button.
1. Cardinals fans: Until about a week ago, I had no idea that people actually rooted for the Arizona/Phoenix/St. Louis/Chicago/Racine Cardinals. I will be interested to see how these people will react to things like: a big game, potential rain, and people from Pennsylvania without a trace of a tan.
2. NBC has the game: This means no Joe Buck. This means no Tony Siragusa. This means no Howie, Terry and Jimmy. This means no robot football player during timeouts. This means telestration by John Madden. This means actual comprehensive coverage from the studio with Costas, Collinsworth, and Dan Patrick. Unfortunately, this also means Keith Olbermann.
3. Sans Manning: I already consider this Superbowl a success, as it is physically impossible for the member of the Manning family to win it.
Disclaimer: I should note that the previous picture was not of the Manning family I was speaking about. But it: A. was what I found when I googled 'Manning brothers'; B. is hilarious; C. sums up how I feel about the actual Manning brothers.
4. Tampa: No, this is not in reference to Tampa's beautiful beaches, gorgeous views, or place in UConn basketball history. This is in reference to Tampa's apparent bevy of strip clubs. Using a Pacman Jones joke would be too easy here. My favorite excerpt:
"local lawmakers passed an anti-lap-dance ordinance before the last Super Bowl here in 2001, making it a misdemeanor offense for dancers to come within six feet of patrons."
Hi my name is Ben Roethlisberger, how much for an air dance?
5. Bruce Springsteen: The Bossman is providing the halftime entertainment. For Kurt Warner, I suggest "Countin' On A Miracle," and, "I'm Goin' Down."
6. Senor Bean: Check out the television listings for Sunday night. Unless you're in to reruns of The Drew Carey Show (Cleveland SUCKS by the way), or Teen Cribs...you'll probably want to stick with the game. Although Mr. Bean on Telemundo will probably be on my recall button.
Baseball Managers
The recent hot stove uproar over Joe Torre's new book has made me wonder: how important is a baseball manager anyway? Traditional sports media types love to talk about baseball managers (four letter network, I'm looking at you), but how should baseball managers be judged? It appears that the manager's value is yet another front of the "sabermetrics vs. intangibles" war - sabermetrically inclined teams/organizations don't care about their team's manager whereas less sabermetrically inclined teams care a great deal (Oakland's Bob Geren makes the league minimum, Lou Pinella makes 3.5mil).
Let's first examine what a manager actually controls:
- Playing time - specifically who to play and where to play them (obviously, this must be judged based on the players available for the manager to use)
- Stolen base success rates
- Bullpen usage
- Other game theory related issues (shifts, hit-and-runs, bunts, etc)
- Motivational ploys
- Day-to-day public relations of the team's 40 man roster
If we assume that the decision to call up prospects from the minors is an organizational rather than managerial decision, then a manager's control is extremely limited. However, a manager can do good things, or, more often, bad things (like, say giving Corey Patterson 366ABs). As for Torre, how many tough decisions has he had to make over the years? Penciling in the likes of A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, etc makes the job much easier, however, allowing Jeter to take two steps and let balls roll by while he blows bubbles for a decade when a better fielder is 10ft to his right seems like a bad call. Torre has shown an ability to learn as he goes along - notice the Yankees SB% doesnt drop below 70% after '01 (however, such a drastic change could be attributed to baseball as a whole rather than Torre as an individual). Clearly Torre handled the New York media well but his motivational ability (especially in the playoffs) lacks any sort of distinction; Torre has always seemed content to not cause any waves while other managers (Bobby Cox's foul-mouthed trots out of the dugout are an especially poignant example) seem to at least try to motivate their players by getting thrown out of games. Perhaps it is telling that one a manager's best options to motivate his players is to get thrown out.
Obviously, only some of the manager's responsibilities are quantifiable, most of the job's success or failure falls under the scope of opinion - but in the humble opinion of this baseball fan some managers are clearly good, bad, and downright terrible.
Let's first examine what a manager actually controls:
- Playing time - specifically who to play and where to play them (obviously, this must be judged based on the players available for the manager to use)
- Stolen base success rates
- Bullpen usage
- Other game theory related issues (shifts, hit-and-runs, bunts, etc)
- Motivational ploys
- Day-to-day public relations of the team's 40 man roster
If we assume that the decision to call up prospects from the minors is an organizational rather than managerial decision, then a manager's control is extremely limited. However, a manager can do good things, or, more often, bad things (like, say giving Corey Patterson 366ABs). As for Torre, how many tough decisions has he had to make over the years? Penciling in the likes of A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, etc makes the job much easier, however, allowing Jeter to take two steps and let balls roll by while he blows bubbles for a decade when a better fielder is 10ft to his right seems like a bad call. Torre has shown an ability to learn as he goes along - notice the Yankees SB% doesnt drop below 70% after '01 (however, such a drastic change could be attributed to baseball as a whole rather than Torre as an individual). Clearly Torre handled the New York media well but his motivational ability (especially in the playoffs) lacks any sort of distinction; Torre has always seemed content to not cause any waves while other managers (Bobby Cox's foul-mouthed trots out of the dugout are an especially poignant example) seem to at least try to motivate their players by getting thrown out of games. Perhaps it is telling that one a manager's best options to motivate his players is to get thrown out.
Obviously, only some of the manager's responsibilities are quantifiable, most of the job's success or failure falls under the scope of opinion - but in the humble opinion of this baseball fan some managers are clearly good, bad, and downright terrible.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
King Selig
Apparently, Jordan Schafer never tested positive for HGH nor was it otherwise proven that he took it. According to Schafer, his 50-game suspension was based on associating with other players who were taking HGH.
I suppose we can only take Schafer's word for what it's worth, but if circumstantial evidence is the best MLB has on a player, it seems like suspending such a player stands on, at best, shaky ground.
I suppose we can only take Schafer's word for what it's worth, but if circumstantial evidence is the best MLB has on a player, it seems like suspending such a player stands on, at best, shaky ground.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Great Day for the Braves
What a glorious day for Atlanta Braves fans. Derek Lowe and Kawakami in the same day! My how our rotation will look different
1. Hudson (when he's healthy)
2. Lowe
3. Jurjens
4. Kawakami
5. Vazquez
It's not the Yankees but not too shabby.
Does anyone have any info on Kawakami? I have seen his youtube video, seen his stats from Japan, but not sure about his pitches, etc.
1. Hudson (when he's healthy)
2. Lowe
3. Jurjens
4. Kawakami
5. Vazquez
It's not the Yankees but not too shabby.
Does anyone have any info on Kawakami? I have seen his youtube video, seen his stats from Japan, but not sure about his pitches, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
